estimation of spatial temporal gait parameters using a low cost ultrasonic motion analysis system

Sensors 2014, 14, 15434-15457; doi:10.3390/s140815434 OPEN ACCESS sensors ISSN 1424-8220 www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors Article Estimation of Spatial-Temporal Gait Parameters Using a Low-Cost Ultrasonic Motion Analysis System Yongbin Qi, Cheong Boon Soh *, Erry Gunawan, Kay-Soon Low and Rijil Thomas School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, 50 Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 639798, Singapore; E-Mails: qiyo0001@e.ntu.edu.sg (Y.Q.); egunawan@ntu.edu.sg (E.G.); ekslow@ntu.edu.sg (K.-S.L.); rijil001@e.ntu.edu.sg (R.T.) * Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: ecbsoh@ntu.edu.sg; Tel.: +65-6790-5373 Received: 28 May 2014; in revised form: 14 August 2014 / Accepted: 15 August 2014 / Published: 20 August 2014 Abstract: In this paper, a low-cost motion analysis system using a wireless ultrasonic sensor network is proposed and investigated A methodology has been developed to extract spatial-temporal gait parameters including stride length, stride duration, stride velocity, stride cadence, and stride symmetry from 3D foot displacements estimated by the combination of spherical positioning technique and unscented Kalman filter The performance of this system is validated against a camera-based system in the laboratory with 10 healthy volunteers Numerical results show the feasibility of the proposed system with average error of 2.7% for all the estimated gait parameters The influence of walking speed on the measurement accuracy of proposed system is also evaluated Statistical analysis demonstrates its capability of being used as a gait assessment tool for some medical applications Keywords: ultrasonic sensor; gait analysis; walking assessment; gait kinematics; wireless sensor network Introduction The significance of spatial-temporal gait parameters measurement has been addressed in many research papers [1–3] The quantitative analysis of such gait parameters can be helpful to diagnose impairments in balance control [4], monitor the progress in rehabilitation [5], and predict the risk of falling [6,7] Such parameters include stride length, walking velocity, stride cadence, stride duration Sensors 2014, 14 15435 and asymmetry of stride In particular, stride asymmetry has been shown to be more indicative of the underlying impairments and walking stability [8,9] Therefore, having instruments that are capable of measuring these gait parameters about the patients’ walking ability is useful in many clinical applications [10] The most commonly employed method for gait analysis involves the use of multi-camera motion capture system and force plates, which is capable of measuring ground reaction forces and tracking the 3-dimensional positions of reflective markers [11] However, measurements using this system require specialized laboratories, complex calibration and expensive equipments [12], which makes it ill-suited for routine applications Moreover, it is sensitive to changes in lighting, clutter and shadow [13,14] Many motion analysis systems using non-traditional methods have been proposed over the last decade [11] These systems, for example, use wearable force sensors to measure the ground reaction force for the estimation of foot dynamics and centre of mass displacement [1,15,16] Even X-ray is used to measure the 3-dimensional body segment parameters for gait analysis [17] Since in many applications it is desirable to monitor human body motion in various environments, some portable and low-cost systems are preferred Inertial/magnetic systems are becoming more popular due to their low cost, small form factor and easy implementation [12] However, when it comes to the estimates of foot displacements, double integration of measured accelerations is needed to get the displacement or position information Unfortunately, it is difficult to obtain accurate motion accelerations because of the presence of sensor bias and measurement noise, which leads to the exponential increase of displacement error over integration time [18] This issue can be mitigated either by applying some techniques to correct it periodically, such as zero velocity update (ZUPT), or by applying Kalman filter [19], or by combining with other sensors, such as imaging sensors, Radio Frequency identification (RFID) technology, or ultra-wide band (UWB) technique [20–23] These mentioned hybrid motion tracking systems can improve the tracking accuracy, but with an increased cost, complexity of experiment installation and maintenance Ultrasonic sensors are among the most commonly used techniques in gait analysis due to its safety, low cost, and high accuracy and resolution for low range measurement There are two types of ultrasonic transceivers, one relies on reflection from the surface, as the one used in [24,25] The distance measurement of such ultrasonic sensor is the returned distance reflected from the ground, and the orientation of foot during walking is not considered Therefore, it is not the vertical distance being measured The other one is with ultrasonic transmitter and receiver on separate circuit boards using direct line of sight The synchronization clock between transmitter and receiver is provided by an RF module [26,27] There are only two receivers used in [26,27], which only measures one directional displacement, i.e., displacement in the direction of progression In our paper, a wearable wireless ultrasonic sensor system for estimating 3-dimensional displacement to extract spatial-temporal gait parameters is developed As compared with [26,27], the proposed system can measure not only the displacement in the direction of progression, but also the foot clearance, which occurs in the vertical direction and is an important parameter that is critical to the description of upright stability [5] Additionally, the proposed ultrasonic motion analysis system is designed to allow patients to be monitored in an unconstrained environment To reduce the usage of wires, we used the wireless sensor network concept with all the sensor nodes communicating to the coordinator wirelessly Furthermore, Sensors 2014, 14 15436 the ultrasonic sensor node placed on human body is light and small Additionally, the proposed motion analysis system is low-cost compared with the camera-based motion analysis system Related Work The tracking techniques for locating a mobile device’s position are studied using many approaches [28–30] There are two major localization and tracking techniques, Receiver-Synchronization relative measurement (RS) and Global-Synchronization absolute range measurement (GS) [30] RS range measurement only requires anchors to be synchronized and Time-Difference-of-Arrival (TDOA) technique is used for tracking and localization In GS range measurement, both the mobile and the anchors are synchronized and the absolute distance can be estimated using Time-of-Arrival (TOA) technique In our system, we prefer higher tracking and localization accuracy to accurately measure spatial-temporal gait parameters Thus, we used the TOA-based tracking technique because the TDOA-based tracking technique has worse performance RF signals are used in our system for synchronization between the anchors and the mobile RF signal travels at the speed of light and the time it takes to reach mobile target is almost instantaneous and can be considered zero since the speed of ultrasound in air is much lower [31] Under ideal range measurement case, an analytical localization method called trilateration, which uses only distance measurements, can be applied to identify the position of the mobile For TOA-based localization technique, the target can be located at the intersecting point of several cycles that are formed by these anchors with known positions and distances to the mobile [31] However, for a mobile target, it is not easy to track or localize because the range measurements are noisy and fluctuate, since the mobile can be located at anywhere in overlapped regions of such circles rather than being located at a single point at the intersection of the circles It is therefore desired to have accurate tracking and localization methods capable of filtering out the range measurement noises One of the representative nonlinear state estimators is the least square (LS) method, which first transforms the nonlinear equations into linear ones and then solves the linear equations by LS-based estimator Although the computation of this method is efficient, the tracking accuracy may not be sufficient [32] Another typical method is proposed in [33], which begins with an initial guess and then applies least sum squared error to solve the nonlinear equation recursively Although it provides better tracking performance, the initial guess should be carefully selected to guarantee the convergence of the iteration [34] Therefore, many researchers proposed other methods to enhance the positioning performance One representative implementation of indoor sensor network used to track a mobile is the Cricket of MIT [35,36] It employs a hybrid approach involving the use of an Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) and Least Square Minimization to enhance the tracking and localization performance EKF is the most commonly used nonlinear state estimator using the first or second order terms of the Taylor series expansion, which is most appropriate when the noise statistics is Gaussian distribution, to linearize the state and observation models [37] Therefore, for some highly nonlinear dynamics, the linearization of EKF insufficiently characterizes the relationship Therefore, we use Unscented Kalman Filter (UKF) to overcome such limitations of EKF, i.e., the requirement for the Sensors 2014, 14 15437 noises to be Gaussian and the poor linearization of first or second order approximation We will explain the tracking algorithm in more detail in the following section Methods 3.1 Ultrasonic Sensor System The acquisition system that we developed for wearable gait analysis uses the wireless sensor network concept, with all mobile nodes communicating wirelessly with the coordinator to enable patients to be monitored in unconstrained environment, as shown in Figure The proposed measurement system consists of one ultrasonic transmitter (referred to as the mobile with form factor: cm × cm × 1.6 cm) and four ultrasonic receivers (referred to as the anchors with the same form factor) made by Embedream studio, China [38] The foot displacements measured using the TOA-based tracking technique were expressed in a global coordinate system that described foot position relative to the ground, as shown in Figure 1a The X-axis was defined as the direction of progression, i.e., anterior-posterior direction, and the Y-axis was defined as the vertical direction The third axis of the coordinate system, i.e., the Z-axis, was determined in such a way to form a right-handed coordinate system However, for healthy subjects, the 2-dimensional model is sufficient to obtain spatial-temporal gait parameters, because the sagittal plane is the plane where the majority of movements take place Figure (a) Hardware system of the ultrasonic sensor system The hardware comprises of a microcontroller and ultrasonic sensing components, which are on separate circuit boards The ultrasonic transmitter is attached to the heel of subject with an elastic strap (b) Block diagram of the ultrasonic motion analysis system (a) (b) Figure 1b shows the configuration of the ultrasonic measurement system A battery-powered ultrasonic transmitter node is attached to the heel of the subject’s foot The mobile sensor node establishes communication with the coordinator node through a low power 430 MHz RF transceiver RFM12B The coordinator node is also wirelessly communicating with the computer through a wireless Sensors 2014, 14 15438 data transmission module The wireless data transmission module forwards all collected information to a personal computer through RS232 cable for postprocessing In the system, ultrasonic range measurements are initiated by a periodic trigger input with a pulse duration of 10 µs Then, the ultrasound transmitter is triggered to produce an ultrasonic burst consisting of pulses with a frequency of 40 kHz Meanwhile, the RF module on the mobile node is triggered synchronously, thus sending out a data package with a timer starter command (TSC) using broadcast address to notify the anchors that an ultrasound signal has been transmitted Once the anchor receives TSC, it will start its 16-bit counter to record the propagation delay from the mobile to the anchor The transmission time of the RF signal from the mobile is negligible, since the speed of light is much faster than the speed of ultrasound The 16-bit counter will stop counting immediately after each of the transmitted burst is detected by the anchor Then the counted steps will be converted to propagation delay by multiplying the time resolution (instruction cycle) of the microcontroller From this delay, the distance between the mobile and the anchor can be calculated by: d = t · vs (1) where d is the distance in meters, t is the propagation delay in seconds and vs is the speed of ultrasound in air The ultrasound velocity can be approximated to [26]: vs = 331.5 + 0.6Tc (2) where Tc is the air temperature in degree Celsius Together with the known positions of these anchors, the position of the mobile is located using the TOA-based tracking technique, which finds the intersection area of circles centered at each anchor with radius equal to the measured distances The tracking algorithm is discussed in the following section 3.2 Tracking Algorithm In this section, we first explain how to establish a state space of nonlinear system to estimate the state of the moving target Next we will apply UKF to enhance the performance of the tracking technique 3.2.1 Motion and Measurement Model The mobile target in 3-dimensional field is represented by its position and velocity in X-Y-Z plane: Xk = [xk yk zk x˙k y˙k z˙k ]T (3) where Pk = [xk yk zk ]T are the position coordinates along X-, Y- and Z-axes at time step k, and P˙k = [x˙k y˙k z˙k ]T are the moving velocities with respect to these three axes at time step k To formulate the dynamic transition process, the following state space equations are given Xk+1 = Ak Xk + Gk wk Yk = h (Xk ) + vk (4) Sensors 2014, 14 where   0  0 Ak =  0   0 15439 0 0    ∆tk 0 0 ∆tk /2    0 ∆tk  ∆t2k /2        0 ∆tk  /2 ∆t k  , Gk =     0  0   ∆tk      0  ∆tk  0 0 ∆tk (5) where ∆tk = tk+1 − tk is the sampling interval wk = [wx wy wz ]T is the white Gaussian noise with zero mean and covariance matrix W = diag(σw2 x , σw2 y , σw2 z ) V = diag(e21 , e22 , e23 , e24 ) denotes the covariance matrix of the measurement noise vk Let dik denote the measured distance at the ith anchor using the equation: d1k = (xk − x1 )2 + (yk − y1 )2 + (zk − z1 )2 + e1k d2k = (xk − x2 )2 + (yk − y2 )2 + (zk − z2 )2 + e2k 2 (6) d3k = (xk − x3 ) + (yk − y3 ) + (zk − z3 ) + e3k d4k = (xk − x4 )2 + (yk − y4 )2 + (zk − z4 )2 + e4k where [xi yi zi ] is the known position of anchor i, eik is the distance measurement error at anchor i, Yk = [d1k d2k d3k d4k ]T , and vk = [e1k e2k e3k e4k ]T 3.2.2 Unscented Kalman Filtering The aforementioned state space model is a nonlinear dynamical system to the measurement distances and the state of foot motion The approximation of UKF is to find a transformation that captures the mean and covariance of state random variable of length n through a nonlinear function [39] We summarize the algorithm as follows For each time step k, start from X k/k and Pk/k , Generate sigma points Bk/k = χk/k = (n + λ)Pk/k ¯ k/k X ¯ k/k + Bk/k X ¯ k/k − Bk/k X (7) ∈ Rn×(2n+1) Compute the a-priori statistics χ∗k+1/k = χk/k ¯ k+1/k = X 2n i=0 Wim χ∗i,k+1/k Pk+1/k = Gk W GTk + 2n i=0 ¯ k+1/k ][χ∗ ¯ k+1/k ]T Wic [χ∗i,k+1/k − X −X i,k+1/k (8) Sensors 2014, 14 15440 Update Bk+1/k = (n + λ)Pk+1/k χk+1/k = ¯ k+1/k X ¯ k+1/k + Bk+1/k X ¯ k+1/k − Bk+1/k X (9) Yk+1/k = h(χk+1/k ) Y¯k+1/k = 2n Wim Yi,k+1/k i=0 Compute the Kalman gain Pyy = 2n Wic [Yi,k+1/k − Y¯k+1/k ][Yi,k+1/k − Y¯k+1/k ]T + V i=0 2n Pxy = (10) Wic [χi,k+1/k ¯ k+1/k ][Yi,k+1/k − Y¯k+1/k ]T −X i=0 −1 Kk+1 = Pxy Pyy Compute the a-posteriori statistics ¯ k+1/k+1 = X ¯ k+1/k + Kk+1 (Yk+1 − Y¯k+1/k ) X T Pk+1/k+1 = Pk+1/k − Kk+1 Pyy Kk+1 (11) W is the associated weight matrix: W0m = λ/(n + λ) W0c = λ/(n + λ) + − α2 + β Wim = 1/(2(n + λ)) (12) Wic = 1/(2(n + λ)), i = 1, , 2n Parameter λ is the scaling factor, which is defined as: λ = α2 (n + κ) − n (13) where α and κ control the spread of the sigma points around the mean of the state (α is usually set to a small positive value, e.g., 10−3 ) and κ is set to 0), β is related to the distribution of state variable (for Gaussian distribution, β = is optimal) 3.3 Gait Parameters Estimation 3.3.1 Autocorrelation Procedure The idea of analyzing gait data by autocorrelation procedure is first proposed by Barrey et al [40] and Auvinet et al [41] Then, the difference between biased and unbiased autocorrelation procedure for gait data analysis has been discussed by Moe et al [9] Here we summarize the autocorrelation procedure as follows Sensors 2014, 14 15441 The autocorrelation coefficient shows the degree of similarity between the given observations (i = 1, 2, , N ) as a function of the time lag over successive time intervals, as given by: N −m A= ai+m (14) i=1 where m is the phase shift in the number of observations The autocorrelation coefficients of a periodical signal will produce peak values for lag time equivalent to the cycle of the signal, which is the stride duration Therefore, visual assessment of autocorrelation from the time series plot can be used to inspect the structure of a cyclic component As discussed in [9], either biased or unbiased autocorrelation coefficient can be computed for gait data analysis, but biased autocorrelation is not suitable for comparing autocorrelation coefficient over different time lags The biased autocorrelation is the result of the raw autocorrelation coefficient A divided by the number of the observations in Equation (14): Abiased = N N −m ai+m (15) i=1 In Equation (15), the denominator N is the number of samples in observation , which is independent of the time lag m It means that the number of samples in the numerator will decrease as the time lag m increases, and then the autocorrelation coefficient will attenuate However, this is not the case in unbiased autocorrelation estimator, expressed as: Aunbiased = N −m N −m ai+m (16) i=1 Since the number of terms in the numerator N − m is always equal to the value of the denominator, there is no noticeable attenuation in the unbiased estimator Figure shows the two different estimators for horizontal displacement during treadmill walking The biased estimator shows clear periodicity but with attenuated amplitudes, while the unbiased estimator introduces no obvious attenuation except a deteriorated curve at the tails Figure Horizontal foot displacement curve, biased and unbiased autocorrelation plots of normal gait -1 -1 -1 Horizontal foot displacement 10 20 30 40 Biased horizontal autocorrelation 20 40 60 80 Unbiased horizontal autocorrelation 20 40 Time [s] 60 80 Sensors 2014, 14 15442 3.3.2 Estimation of Stride Regularity and Symmetry Figure shows the normalized unbiased autocorrelation of horizontal and vertical foot displacement during treadmill walking Since the first peak from the zero phase represents a phase shift of one stride duration, the autocorrelation coefficient at the periodic phase shift is defined as the regularity of the stride between neighboring strides, referred to as hRi for horizontal displacement and vRi for vertical displacement Therefore, either for horizontal or vertical displacement, the closeness of hRi+1 /hRi or vRi+1 /vRi reflects the stride symmetry Figure demonstrates an example of asymmetric gait showing the unbiased autocorrelation sequence of the horizontal and vertical displacements Figure Horizontal and vertical unbiased autocorrelation plots of normal gait Unbiased horizontal autocorrelation hR1 -1 hR2 15 10 Unbiased vertical autocorrelation vR1 vR Zero Phase -1 Stride Duration 10 Time [s] 15 Figure Horizontal and vertical unbiased autocorrelation plots of abnormal gait Unbiased horizontal autocorrelation -1 20 40 60 80 Unbiased vertical autocorrelation -1 20 40 Time [s] 60 80 3.3.3 Estimation of Gait Parameters From the estimated foot displacements by the proposed algorithm, the following spatial-temporal gait parameters can be obtained With respect to the jth gait cycle, the estimators of the spatial-temporal gait parameters are as follows: Sensors 2014, 14 15443 • Stride Length, S: S(j) = 2St(j) St(j) = M ax(xj ) − M in(xj ) (17) where the functions M ax(x) and M in(x) return the maximum and minimum value of the variable x, and xj is the horizontal displacement in the jth gait cycle; • Normalized Stride Length, N S: (18) N S(j) = S(j)/n where N S is defined as the stride length normalized by the number of strides n; • Stride Duration, T : T (j) = Index(max(xj+1 )) − Index(max(xj )) (19) where the function Index(max(xj )) returns the location of the maximum value in xj ; • Stride velocity, V : V (j) = S(j)/T (j) (20) • Normalized Velocity, N V : N V (j) = V (j)/n where the normalized speed is the speed as percentage of the number of strides n; • Cadence, C: C(j) = 1/T (j) (21) (22) where the cadence is the number of strides in a second Experimental Validation 4.1 Experiment Setup The proposed method was tested on 10 healthy subjects (age 25.7 ± 1.4 years, height 171.4 ± 6.5 cm, and weight 62.8 ± 5.6 kg) walking on a treadmill at slow, normal, and fast walking speeds, the results of which are presented in this paper The subjects were recruited from students of Nanyang Technological University and none of them had a history of pathological gait disorders To provide a more systematic validation, we conducted the experiments in a motion analysis lab with eight high speed cameras (Motion Analysis Eagle System, Santa Rosa, CA, USA) in the School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Nanyang Technological University The Motion Analysis Eagle System consists of Eagle Digital Cameras and Cortex software, which captures complex 3D motion with extreme accuracy System calibrations of the reference system should be done at both static (with 4-point calibration L-frame) and dynamic process (with 3-point calibration wand) to ensure an acceptable accuracy of the reference system In our experiments, the accuracy of the reference system is 0.43 ± 0.18 mm (Average ± Standard deviation) Figure 1a shows the placement of ultrasonic sensor and reflective markers on the test subject’s foot There were four anchors used in our experiment with positions p1 = [0 0]T , p2 = [0.324m 0]T , p3 = [0.324m 0.230m 0]T , p4 = [0 0.230m 0]T The ultrasonic transmitter was attached to the heel of the foot pointing towards the four anchors, using elastic straps In our method, only one ultrasonic Sensors 2014, 14 15444 sensor (transmitter) is needed to attach to the foot, which minimizes user discomfort and avoids complex calibration procedures and synchronization issues All data transmission between anchors, coordinator and transmitter are done wirelessly through the RF module Therefore, it does not restrict the movement of subjects The ultrasonic sensor data were acquired at 50 Hz Data from the reference system were captured at 200 Hz The difference between the sampling rate of these two systems was compensated by linear interpolation All data were low-pass filtered by second order low-pass Butterworth filter at 10 Hz 4.2 Processing of Measured Data In order to compare the estimated spatial-temporal gait parameters at each recorded gait cycle, the foot trajectory estimate with proposed ultrasonic sensors was temporally delayed to match the trajectory estimated by the camera reference system, by finding the maximum values of cross-correlation between these two trajectories To quantify the performance of the proposed system against the camera reference system, the mean and standard deviation (std) were calculated on the datasets of difference, as well as the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) This is followed by using the analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test differences in the means of the ten subjects for statistical significance Finally, walking speed was estimated using the proposed ultrasonic sensor configuration to check significant changes over different speeds Two-sample t-tests were performed on the walking velocity and the extracted gait parameters to assess the significance of change in these gait parameters with speed, and thus investigate the effect of walking velocity on the difference between the proposed system and the reference system in gait parameters estimation 4.3 Parameters Identification As the system modelling we have adopted in Section 3.2.1., the process and measurement noise statistics should be estimated A wooden pendulum was constructed using a uniaxial pivot so that it swung through an arc [42] The ultrasonic transmitter was placed at the end of this pendulum, and a reflective marker was also located approximately in alignment with the ultrasonic transmitter head The pendulum was raised up at an angle and allowed to drop freely until it came to a stable position This action was repeated M times The experiment helps to find suitable values of process noise W and measurement noise V The measurements from camera system, ri , are referred to as the actual distance for test i, and there are N measurement samples mji collected for each test, where j = 1, · · · , N 4.3.1 Process Noise Statistics in Kalman Filter As the process noise in UKF is an independent variable, it is difficult to get an exact value [31] Here, we consider it as a velocity noise in X, Y and Z directions in mm/s The process noise W was estimated using numerical methods By varying the values of σwx , σwy and σwz , we will get the corresponding trajectory of the mobile to compute the RMSE value Typical values of σwx , σwy and σwz will be selected when their corresponding RMSE is minimal The typical values of W used in our experiments are σwx = 30, σwy = 25, σwz = 10 Sensors 2014, 14 15445 4.3.2 Measurement Noise Statistics in Kalman Filter It is reasonable to assume that all anchors have independent distributed noise Then, the mean and covariance of the measurement noise can be evaluated by the pendulum experiments Using the data obtained from the specific experiments, straightforward calculations lead to the estimation of mean and variance of the measurement errors u= MN M N mji − ri i=1 j=1 e2 = M (N − 1) M (23) N mji − u i=1 j=1 Typical value of V used in our experiments is V = diag(11, 9.3, 9, 9) with the units as mm2 In other words, the accuracy of distance measurement by each ultrasonic sensors is around mm The results of pendulum experiment have been shown in Table The Net RMSE is defined as 2 N et RM SE = XRM SE + YRM SE + ZRM SE The difference between the two systems was obtained with an RMSE value of 4.08 mm in horizontal direction (X), 0.72 mm in vertical direction (Y) and 1.08 mm in lateral direction The Net RMSE value of 4.28 mm in 3D space of UKF estimator is achievable in the pendulum model Table Errors of pendulum experiment in 3D space compared with motion capture system X Y Z Mean (mm) std (mm) RMSE (mm) Net RMSE (mm) 0.02 0.03 0.09 4.08 0.72 1.08 4.08 0.72 1.08 4.08 4.14 4.28 4.4 Results 4.4.1 Performance Comparison The mean and standard deviation in stride length, stride duration, and stride velocity estimation between the proposed system and the reference system together with RMSE value are reported in Tables 2–4 for all subjects walking at normal speed On average, across all subjects, the estimates of stride length from the proposed method were 0.001 m less than the reference measurements The overall RMSE value is about 0.027 m, which is 2.3% of the mean estimated stride length of the reference system The mean and standard deviation of stride duration at normal walking speed is reported as 1.18 ± 0.02 s by the reference system and 1.18 ± 0.04 s by the proposed system, which shows no mean difference between the two systems The average error across all subjects of RMSE of the estimated stride duration is 0.035 s with 3% percent error The mean and standard deviation in the estimation of the stride velocity is reported in Table 4, which shows that the proposed method slightly overestimated the stride velocity by 0.001 m/s with an RMSE value of 0.036 m/s, occupying 3.6% of the proposed estimates of stride velocity Sensors 2014, 14 15446 Table Mean and standard deviation (in meters) of the reference (Ref) and proposed (Pro) systems and RMSE in detecting stride length for each subject Averaged values across the ten subjects are also reported Subject Ref Pro mean std mean std RMSE 1.147 1.071 0.047 0.019 1.147 1.070 0.057 0.025 0.029 0.022 10 Average Peak 1.158 0.019 1.157 0.027 0.013 1.421 0.037 1.420 0.057 0.033 1.117 0.046 1.116 0.050 0.029 1.137 0.056 1.136 0.064 0.024 1.101 0.041 1.100 0.034 0.020 1.276 0.035 1.274 0.038 0.029 1.041 0.055 1.040 0.067 0.042 1.224 0.034 1.223 0.035 0.030 1.169 0.039 1.168 0.045 0.027 1.421 0.056 1.420 0.067 0.042 Table Mean and standard deviation (in seconds) of the reference (Ref) and proposed (Pro) systems and RMSE in detecting stride duration for each subject Averaged values across the ten subjects are also reported Subject Ref Pro mean std mean std RMSE 1.237 1.109 0.031 0.011 1.236 1.108 0.053 0.031 0.042 0.030 1.134 0.014 1.134 0.033 0.027 1.344 1.160 1.155 1.114 0.015 0.021 0.025 0.020 1.341 1.161 1.155 1.114 0.024 0.049 0.039 0.044 0.026 0.046 0.029 0.034 10 Average Peak 1.309 0.020 1.308 0.045 0.035 1.050 0.030 1.051 0.050 0.033 1.192 0.014 1.190 0.046 0.046 1.180 0.020 1.180 0.041 0.035 1.344 0.031 1.341 0.053 0.046 Table Mean and standard deviation (in meters per second) of the reference (Ref) and proposed (Pro) systems and RMSE in detecting stride velocity for each subject Averaged values across the ten subjects are also reported Subject Ref Pro mean std mean std RMSE 0.927 0.966 0.032 0.017 0.928 0.966 0.042 0.032 0.038 0.033 1.021 0.011 1.021 0.027 0.024 1.057 0.964 0.984 0.989 0.025 0.039 0.043 0.043 1.060 0.962 0.984 0.989 0.042 0.049 0.053 0.046 0.021 0.049 0.032 0.035 10 Average Peak 0.974 0.028 0.975 0.038 0.031 0.992 0.049 0.991 0.064 0.047 1.027 0.034 1.029 0.053 0.053 0.990 0.032 0.991 0.045 0.036 1.057 0.049 1.060 0.064 0.053 We have elaborated how gait cycle periodicity of foot displacement data can be used to extract stride regularity and symmetry by unbiased autocorrelation procedure in Section 3.3.2 Tables and show the mean and standard deviation of the reference system and the proposed system together with RMSE values in detecting horizontal and vertical stride symmetry respectively for each subject The mean and standard deviation data of horizontal stride symmetry are 1.001 ± 0.021 by the reference system and 0.999 ± 0.027 by the proposed system, which shows that the ultrasonic-based horizontal stride symmetry was underestimated by a negligible error of 0.002 An RMSE of 0.013 with 1.3% percent error is also reported for the estimates of horizontal stride symmetry across all subjects In the contrary, the Sensors 2014, 14 15447 ultrasonic-based vertical stride symmetry was overestimated by 0.007, where the RMSE value is 0.034 with a percent error of 3.5% In summary, all the numerical results show a clinically acceptable accuracy of the proposed system with an average percent error of 2.7% for all the estimated gait parameters Table Mean and standard deviation of the reference (Ref) and proposed (Pro) systems and RMSE in detecting horizontal stride symmetry (hS) for each subject Averaged values across the ten subjects are also reported Subject Ref Pro mean std mean std RMSE 1.002 1.003 0.021 0.010 1.004 1.001 0.027 0.007 0.010 0.004 1.000 0.007 1.001 0.008 0.004 1.012 1.002 0.996 1.000 0.021 0.016 0.033 0.006 1.011 1.001 0.991 1.000 0.023 0.022 0.049 0.013 0.013 0.011 0.021 0.009 10 Average Peak 0.995 0.014 0.996 0.016 0.008 0.999 0.067 0.989 0.089 0.038 1.000 0.009 1.000 0.018 0.010 1.001 0.021 0.999 0.027 0.013 1.012 0.067 1.011 0.089 0.038 Table Mean and standard deviation of the reference (Ref) and proposed (Pro) systems and RMSE in detecting vertical stride symmetry (vS) for each subject Averaged values across the ten subjects are also reported Subject Ref Pro mean std mean std RMSE 1.012 1.000 0.045 0.009 1.009 1.002 0.042 0.038 0.017 0.036 0.995 0.019 0.997 0.017 0.023 0.931 0.996 1.002 1.002 0.181 0.016 0.051 0.010 0.991 0.996 1.003 1.002 0.069 0.038 0.038 0.022 0.079 0.028 0.031 0.020 10 Average Peak 1.004 0.018 1.012 0.044 0.039 1.000 0.065 0.997 0.088 0.048 1.007 0.019 1.011 0.030 0.023 0.995 0.043 1.002 0.043 0.034 1.012 0.181 1.012 0.088 0.079 4.4.2 Statistical Analysis In this part, ANOVA has been performed to test differences in the means (for ten subjects) for statistical significance We base this test on a comparison of the variance due to the between-groups variability (called Mean Square Effect, or M Sef f ect ) with the variance due to the within-group variability (called Mean Square Error, or M Serror ) Before applying ANOVA, whether the distribution of the data is normal or not should be checked Results are reported in Table and Figure A1 In Table 7, H = indicates that the null hypothesis (“mean is zero”) cannot be rejected at the 5% significance level The p-value is the probability of observing the given result by chance if the null hypothesis is true Large value of p shows the validity of the null hypothesis As in Table 7, not only all values of H are equal to zero and the values of p are equal to one, but also the means of estimates are located in the 95% confidence interval Therefore, the estimated parameters are normally distributed Sensors 2014, 14 15448 Table Normality test of gait parameters Mean std H p 95% Confidence Interval S (m) 1.147 0.093 0.000 1.000 1.137 1.158 T (s) 1.164 0.080 0.000 1.000 1.155 1.173 V (m/s) 0.986 0.046 0.000 1.000 0.980 0.991 hS 1.000 0.028 0.000 1.000 0.997 1.003 vS 0.999 0.048 0.000 1.000 0.994 1.005 Under the null hypothesis (that there are no mean differences among subjects), we compare the M Sef f ect and M Serror via the F-test, which tests whether the ratio of the two variance estimates is significantly greater than Otherwise, we will accept the null hypothesis of no differences between the means, i.e., the means (in the population) are not statistically different from each other Figure B1 shows the boxplots of stride length, stride duration, stride velocity, horizontal stride symmetry and vertical stride symmetry for each subject The analysis of variance is summarized in Table C1 As shown in Table C1, for all estimated gait parameters, the small value of between-groups sum of squares likely indicates no differences among the subjects Additionally, the values of F are less than 1, which indicates that the means of all gait parameters are not statistically different 4.4.3 The Effect of Walking Speed on the Measurement of Gait parameters Table provides the numerical results of estimated gait parameters by the proposed system compared with those obtained from the reference system using the pair t-test Significant difference was assumed when the null hypothesis can be rejected at p-value smaller than 0.05 The walking speed, on average, across all subjects was significantly different (p < 0.001 for the two measurement systems) among slow (0.54 ± 0.02 m/s), normal (0.99 ± 0.04 m/s)and fast (1.40 ± 0.04 m/s) speed The influence of walking speed on all spatial-temporal gait parameters was tested by the mean and standard deviation values for the proposed and reference systems The measurement errors of estimated S, NS, NV, C, and vS were not affected significantly by the changes in walking velocity (p > 0.05) Particularly, there is no difference in cadence estimation between the proposed and reference systems The influence of speed on the measurement errors of stride duration T was found to be significantly higher (p < 0.05) at fast speed, but it was not significant for V and hS This can be interpreted as the lower temporal resolution at higher walking speed Figure shows significant changes in T and C, but there is no significant change in other parameters Although the means of both horizontal stride symmetry and vertical stride symmetry are not statistically significant, the largest variations at slow speeds were observed Therefore, the stride symmetry can be used as warning sign of walking disorders Sensors 2014, 14 15449 Table Foot parameters at different walking velocities, ∗ indicates the significant differences with normal speed (p < 0.05) Slow Speed S (m) NS T (s) V (m/s) NV C (stride/s) hS vS Ref Pro RMSE Ref Pro RMSE Ref Pro RMSE Ref Pro RMSE Ref Pro RMSE Ref Pro RMSE Ref Pro RMSE Ref Pro RMSE Normal Fast Mean std p Mean std Mean std p 0.884 0.884 0.024 0.075 0.075 0.001 1.645 1.644 0.039 0.539 0.539 0.020 0.044 0.044 0.001 0.614 0.614 0.000 0.993 0.988 0.024 1.021 1.007 0.105 0.095 0.095 0.012 0.074 0.074 0.001 0.192 0.195 0.015 0.023 0.024 0.008 0.040 0.040 0.001 0.073 0.073 0.000 0.025 0.031 0.016 0.040 0.025 0.111 0.000 * 0.000 * 0.623 0.329 0.329 0.339 0.000 * 0.000 * 0.592 0.000 * 0.000 * 0.005 * 0.692 0.695 0.693 0.000 * 0.000 * NaN 0.368 0.267 0.039 * 0.124 0.652 0.090 1.169 1.168 0.027 0.043 0.043 0.001 1.180 1.180 0.035 0.990 0.991 0.036 0.035 0.035 0.001 0.853 0.853 0.000 1.001 0.999 0.013 0.995 1.002 0.034 0.112 0.112 0.008 0.031 0.031 0.001 0.092 0.091 0.007 0.037 0.038 0.010 0.021 0.022 0.000 0.063 0.063 0.000 0.004 0.006 0.010 0.023 0.007 0.019 1.410 1.409 0.031 0.054 0.054 0.001 1.006 1.006 0.027 1.402 1.402 0.048 0.053 0.053 0.002 0.993 0.993 0.000 1.001 1.002 0.016 1.002 0.999 0.027 0.091 0.090 0.021 0.031 0.031 0.001 0.055 0.054 0.005 0.044 0.043 0.017 0.030 0.030 0.001 0.059 0.059 0.000 0.003 0.005 0.015 0.006 0.007 0.016 0.000 * 0.000 * 0.550 0.425 0.425 0.547 0.000 * 0.000 * 0.019 * 0.000 * 0.000 * 0.073 0.137 0.138 0.131 0.000 * 0.000 * NaN 0.996 0.334 0.587 0.346 0.375 0.333 Figure The effect of walking speeds on spatial-temporal gait parameters at slow, normal and fast walking speed, where ∗ indicates the significant differences with normal speed (p < 0.05) Slow Normal Fast 1.5 0.5 NS T (s) NV C (stride/s) hS vS Sensors 2014, 14 15450 Discussion and Conclusions In this paper, a low-cost ultrasonic motion analysis system using an ultrasonic transmitter and four receivers to track the foot displacement in 3D space is developed The proposed motion analysis system has been validated against camera-based system with 10 healthy subjects, and shown to produce accurate estimates of some spatial-temporal gait parameters including stride length with RMSE value of 0.027 m (2.3%), stride duration with RMSE value of 0.035 s (3%), stride velocity with RMSE value of 0.036 m/s (3.6%), horizontal stride symmetry with RMSE value of 0.013 (1.3%) and vertical stride symmetry with RMSE value of 0.034 m (3.5%) We have further evaluated the influence of walking speed on these gait parameters by paired t-test The proposed system includes some ultrasonic sensors and micro-controllers, estimated today at about a cost of $100, which is inexpensive compared with current commercial camera-based system With the rapid development of technology, the performance of these sensors will continue to improve while becoming available at even lower price Therefore, low-cost in-home monitoring system for clinical applications can be possible As the work stated here is a first step to evaluate the feasibility of the proposed ultrasonic system, only ten healthy subjects participated in the experiments and were instructed to walk on treadmill at different speeds The walking experiments were chosen on treadmill due to the limited measurement volume of the reference camera-based system In addition, we can get a cyclic signal on horizontal displacement to analyze the stride symmetry Although the proposed ultrasonic motion analysis system also has such limitations, the maximum propagation distance of the ultrasonic signal used in our system is 20 m, which is large enough for indoor applications Although the positive results showed the feasibility of applying such a system for in-home monitoring, there is an issue to be addressed in further research, i.e., how to deal with the multipath propagation All the experiments in this study are conducted under line-of-sight condition, where the ultrasonic transmitter faces all the receivers without any obstacles between them Therefore, for 3D displacements, according to spherical positioning technique, a minimum of anchors with known positions are required The method used in our experiment to mitigate the multipath propagation is by setting an inhibit time, i.e., the ultrasound detector will be disabled within the inhibit time to detect an ultrasound signal, and will be enabled again after the inhibit time has passed Another possible solution is that we can use more receivers, which can not only account for multipath propagation, but also increase the measurement volume and accuracy of the proposed system [34] Long-term monitoring is expected to be more challenging as demonstrated in some studies [18,43] In [18,43], foot clearance measurement using inertial sensors is proposed and investigated The displacement estimation requires double integration of measured accelerations from inertial sensors, which involves error accumulation over long time monitoring Even though the growth uncertainty that arises from the integration of acceleration error can be mitigated by periodic corrections like ZUPT, the prerequisite is that the initial and/or terminal contact should be detected correctly, but it may be difficult in some type of abnormal gait Although not specifically studied under long term monitoring, the proposed system does not have significant error accumulation for a walk Sensors 2014, 14 15451 In summary, we used a low-cost ultrasonic motion analysis system to extract spatial-temporal gait parameters, and tested the feasibility of the system against a reference camera-based system The positive results demonstrated a great potential in using this low-cost system for clinical applications such as rehabilitation, gait analysis, and sports For further work, experiments conducted with patients in collaboration with a hospital are being planned using our system Acknowledgments We thank Qu Xingda from School of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering for his technical support and all the subjects who participated in this project Author Contributions The work presented here was carried out in collaboration between all authors Cheong Boon Soh, Erry Gunawan and Kay-Soon Low proposed the research theme with regular feedbacks of suggestions/ideas during the weekly research meetings Yongbin Qi and Cheong Boon Soh co-designed the methods and implementation Yongbin Qi and Rijil Thomas co-worked on associated data collection and carried out the laboratory experiments All authors have contributed, reviewed and improved the manuscript Appendix A Histograms of Stride Length, Stride Duration, Stride Velocity, Horizontal Stride Symmetry and Vertical Stride Symmetry Figure A1 Histograms of all estimates of stride length, stride duration, stride velocity, horizontal stride symmetry and vertical stride symmetry Stride Length (m) 100 Stride Duration (s) 80 70 80 60 60 50 40 40 30 20 20 10 0.8 1.2 (a) 1.4 1.6 1.2 1.1 (b) 1.3 1.4 Sensors 2014, 14 15452 Figure A1 Cont Stride Velocity (m/s) 100 80 60 40 20 0.8 0.9 0.85 1.05 0.95 1.1 (c) Horizontal Stride Symmetry 200 150 100 50 0.85 0.9 0.95 1.05 1.1 (d) Vertical Stride Symmetry 250 200 150 100 50 0.7 0.8 0.9 (e) 1.1 1.2 Sensors 2014, 14 15453 Appendix B Boxplots of Stride Length, Stride Duration, Stride Velocity, Horizontal Stride Symmetry and Vertical Stride Symmetry for Each Subject Figure B1 Boxplots of stride length, stride duration, stride velocity, horizontal stride symmetry and vertical stride symmetry for each subject 1.5 1.35 1.3 Stride Duration (s) Stride Length (m) 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.25 1.2 1.15 1.1 1.05 0.9 Subject ID 10 (a) 10 (b) 1.04 Horizontal Stride Symmetry 1.1 1.05 0.95 0.9 Subject ID 1.02 0.98 0.96 0.94 10 (c) Subject ID (d) Vertical Stride Symmetry Stride Velocity (m/s) Subject ID 0.98 0.96 0.94 0.92 Subject ID (e) 9 Sensors 2014, 14 15454 Appendix C Summary of the Analysis of Variance of Stride Length, Stride Duration, Stride Velocity, Horizontal Stride Symmetry, and Vertical Stride Symmetry Table C1 Summary of the analysis of variance of stride length, stride duration, stride velocity, horizontal stride symmetry, and vertical stride symmetry ANOVA Table: Stride Length Source of Variation Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F Prob > F Between groups Within groups Total 0.01804 1.29563 1.31367 90 99 0.002 0.0144 0.14 0.9984 ANOVA Table: Stride Duration Source of Variation Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F Prob > F Between groups Within groups Total 0.00446 0.81343 0.81789 90 99 0.0005 0.00904 0.05 ANOVA Table: Stride Velocity Source of Variation Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F Prob > F Between groups Within groups Total 0.01709 0.23895 0.25604 90 99 0.0019 0.00266 0.72 0.6936 ANOVA Table: Horizontal Stride Symmetry Source of Variation Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F Prob > F Between groups Within groups Total 0.00069 0.05293 0.05363 90 99 0.00009 0.00059 0.13 0.9976 ANOVA Table: Vertical Stride Symmetry Source of Variation Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F Prob > F Between groups Within groups Total 0.00047 0.0793 0.07977 90 99 0.00005 0.00088 0.06 0.9999 Conflicts of Interest The authors declare no conflict of interest References Liu, T.; Inoue, Y.; Shibata, K A wearable ground reaction force sensor system and its application to the measurement of extrinsic gait variability Sensors 2010, 10, 10240–10255 Dadashi, F.; Mariani, B.; Rochat, S.; Băula, C.J.; Santos-Eggimann, B.; Aminian, K Gait and foot clearance parameters obtained using shoe-worn inertial sensors in a large-population sample of older adults Sensors 2013, 13, 443–457 Sensors 2014, 14 15455 Martin Schepers, H.; van Asseldonk, E.H.; Baten, C.; Veltink, P.H Ambulatory estimation of foot placement during walking using inertial sensors J Biomech 2010, 43, 3138–3143 Salarian, A.; Russmann, H.; Vingerhoets, F.J.; Dehollaini, C.; Blanc, Y.; Burkhard, P.R.; Aminian, K Gait assessment in Parkinson’s disease: Toward an ambulatory system for long-term monitoring IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2004, 51, 1434–1443 Khandoker, A.H.; Taylor, S.B.; Karmakar, C.K.; Begg, R.K.; Palaniswami, M Investigating scale invariant dynamics in minimum toe clearance variability of the young and elderly during treadmill walking IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2008, 16, 380–389 Begg, R.; Best, R.; Dell’Oro, L.; Taylor, S Minimum foot clearance during walking: Strategies for the minimisation of trip-related falls Gait Posture 2007, 25, 191–198 Lai, D.T.; Taylor, S.B.; Begg, R.K Prediction of foot clearance parameters as a precursor to forecasting the risk of tripping and falling Hum Mov Sci 2012, 31, 271–283 Allen, J.L.; Kautz, S.A.; Neptune, R.R Step length asymmetry is representative of compensatory mechanisms used in post-stroke hemiparetic walking Gait Posture 2011, 33, 538–543 Moe-Nilssen, R.; Helbostad, J.L Estimation of gait cycle characteristics by trunk accelerometry J Biomech 2004, 37, 121126 10 Kăose, A.; Cereatti, A.; Della Croce, U Bilateral step length estimation using a single inertial measurement unit attached to the pelvis J Neuroeng Rehabil 2012, 9, 1–10 11 Tao, W.; Liu, T.; Zheng, R.; Feng, H Gait analysis using wearable sensors Sensors 2012, 12, 2255–2283 12 Lee, G.X.; Low, K.S A Factorized Quaternion Approach to Determine the Arm Motions Using Triaxial Accelerometers With Anatomical and Sensor Constraints IEEE Trans Instrum Meas 2012, 61, 1793–1802 13 Qi, Y.; Soh, C.B.; Gunawan, E.; Low, K.S.; Maskooki, A A Novel Approach to Joint Flexion/Extension Angles Measurement Based on Wearable UWB Radios IEEE J Biomed Health Inform 2014, 18, 300–308 14 Qi, Y.; Soh, C.B.; Gunawan, E.; Low, K.S.; Maskooki, A Measurement of knee flexion/extension angle using wearable UWB radios In Proceedings of the 2013 35th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), San Diego, CA, USA, 28 August–1 September 2013; pp 7213–7216 15 Schepers, H.M.; Koopman, H.; Veltink, P.H Ambulatory assessment of ankle and foot dynamics IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2007, 54, 895–902 16 Schepers, H.M.; van Asseldonk, E.H.; Buurke, J.H.; Veltink, P.H Ambulatory estimation of center of mass displacement during walking IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2009, 56, 1189–1195 17 Lee, M.K.; Le, N.S.; Fang, A.C.; Koh, M.T Measurement of body segment parameters using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry and three-dimensional geometry: An application in gait analysis J Biomech 2009, 42, 217–222 18 Lai, D.; Begg, R.; Charry, E.; Palaniswami, M.; Hill, K Measuring toe clearance using a wireless inertial sensing device In Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Sensors, Sensor Networks and Information Processing (ISSNIP 2008), Sydney, NSW, Australia, 15–18 December 2008; pp 375–380 Sensors 2014, 14 15456 19 Petruska, A.J.; Meek, S.G Non-drifting limb angle measurement relative to the gravitational vector during dynamic motions using accelerometers and rate gyros In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intellignet Robots and Systems, San Francisco, CA, USA, 25–30 September 2011 20 Panahandeh, G.; Mohammadiha, N.; Leijon, A.; Hăandel, P Continuous hidden Markov model for pedestrian activity classification and gait analysis IEEE Trans Instrum Meas 2013, 62, 1073–1083 21 Ruiz, A.R.J.; Granja, F.S.; Prieto Honorato, J.C.; Rosas, J.I.G Accurate pedestrian indoor navigation by tightly coupling foot-mounted IMU and RFID measurements IEEE Trans Instrum Meas 2012, 61, 178–189 22 Corrales, J.A.; Candelas, F.; Torres, F Hybrid tracking of human operators using IMU/UWB data fusion by a Kalman filter In Proceedings of the 2008 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 12–15 March 2008; pp 193–200 23 Qi, Y.; Soh, C.B.; Gunawan, E.; Low, K.S.; Maskooki, A Using wearable UWB radios to measure foot clearance during walking In Proceedings of the 2013 35th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), San Diego, CA, USA, 28 August–1 September 2013; pp 5199–5202 24 Wahab, Y.; Bakar, N.A Gait analysis measurement for sport application based on ultrasonic system In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE 15th International Symposium on Consumer Electronics, Singapore, Singapore, 14–17 June 2011 25 Wahab, Y.; Zayegh, A.; Bakar, N Foot-to-ground Clearance Measurement: Analysis and Modelling of MEMS Applicability Int J Res Rev Signal Acquis Process (IJRRSAP) 2012, 2, 154–158 26 Huitema, R.B.; Hof, A.L.; Postema, K Ultrasonic motion analysis system: measurement of temporal and spatial gait parameters J Biomech 2002, 35, 837–842 27 Maki, H.; Ogawa, H.; Yonezawa, Y.; Hahn, A.W.; Caldwell, W.M A new ultrasonic stride length measuring system Biomed Sci Instrum 2012, 48, 282–287 28 Lee, S.; Lee, W.; You, K TDoA Based UAV Localization Using Dual-EKF Algorithm In Control and Automation; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2009; pp 47–54 29 Chen, Z.X.; Wei, H.W.; Wan, Q.; Ye, S.F.; Yang, W.L A supplement to multidimensional scaling framework for mobile location: A unified view IEEE Trans Signal Process 2009, 57, 2030–2034 30 Zhou, Y.; Law, C.; Guan, Y.; Chin, F Indoor elliptical localization based on asynchronous UWB range measurement IEEE Trans Instrum Meas 2011, 60, 248–257 31 Shareef, A.; Zhu, Y Localization using extended Kalman filters in wireless sensor networks In Graduate Student Scholarly and Creative Submissions; University of Maine: Orono, ME, USA, 2009 32 Zhou, Y.; Law, C.L.; Guan, Y.L.; Chin, F Localization of passive target based on UWB backscattering range measurement In Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Ultra-Wideband (ICUWB 2009), Vancouver, BC, Canada, 9–11 September 2009; pp 145–149 33 Foy, W Position-location solutions by Taylor-series estimation IEEE Trans Aerosp Electr Syst 1976, AES-12, 187–194 Sensors 2014, 14 15457 34 Qi, Y.; Soh, C.B.; Gunawan, E.; Low, K.S.; Maskooki, A An Accurate 3D UWB Hyperbolic Localization in Indoor Multipath Environment Using Iterative Taylor-Series Estimation In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE 77th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Spring), Dresden, Germany, 2–5 June 2013; pp 1–5 35 Priyantha, N.B The Cricket Indoor Location System Ph.D Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2005 36 Smith, A.; Balakrishnan, H.; Goraczko, M.; Priyantha, N Tracking moving devices with the cricket location system In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services, Boston, MA, USA, 6–9 June 2004; pp 190–202 37 Hartikainen, J.; Solin, A.; Săarkkăa, S Optimal Filtering with Kalman Filters and Smoothers; Department of Biomedica Engineering and Computational Sciences, Aalto University School of Science: Greater Helsinki, Finland, 16 August 2011 38 Qi, Y.; Soh, C.B.; Gunawan, E.; Low, K.S Ambulatory Measurement of 3-Dimensional Foot Displacement During Treadmill Walking Using Wearable Wireless Ultrasonic Sensor Network IEEE J Biomed Health Inform 2014, accepted 39 Bando, M.; Kawamata, Y.; Aoki, T Dynamic sensor bias correction for attitude estimation using unscented Kalman filter in autonomous vehicle Int J Innov Comput Inf Control 2012, 9, 2347–2358 40 Barrey, E.; Hermelin, M.; Vaudelin, J.; Poirel, D.; Valette, J Utilisation of an accelerometric device in equine gait analysis Equine Vet J 1994, 26, 7–12 41 Auvinet, B.; Chaleil, D.; Barrey, E Accelerometric gait analysis for use in hospital outpatients Revue du rhumatisme (English ed.) 1998, 66, 389–397 42 Brodie, M.; Walmsley, A.; Page, W Dynamic accuracy of inertial measurement units during simple pendulum motion: Technical Note Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 2008, 11, 235–242 43 Mariani, B.; Rochat, S.; Bula, C.; Aminian, K Heel and Toe Clearance Estimation for Gait Analysis Using Wireless Inertial Sensors IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2012, 59, 3162–3168 c 2014 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) Copyright of Sensors (14248220) is the property of MDPI Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use  ... proposed algorithm, the following spatial- temporal gait parameters can be obtained With respect to the jth gait cycle, the estimators of the spatial- temporal gait parameters are as follows: Sensors... R.B.; Hof, A. L.; Postema, K Ultrasonic motion analysis system: measurement of temporal and spatial gait parameters J Biomech 2002, 35, 837–842 27 Maki, H.; Ogawa, H.; Yonezawa, Y.; Hahn, A. W.; Caldwell,... proposed system does not have significant error accumulation for a walk Sensors 2014, 14 15451 In summary, we used a low- cost ultrasonic motion analysis system to extract spatial- temporal gait parameters,